Each morning, Bill Scher and Terrance Heath serve up what progressives need to affect change on the kitchen-table issues families face: jobs, health care, green energy, financial reform, affordable education and retirement security.
Supreme Court Floods Democracy With Corporate Cash
After Supreme Court ruling equating corporate campaign cash with free speech. Lobbyists now locked and loaded. NYT: "The Supreme Court has handed a new weapon to lobbyists. If you vote wrong, a lobbyist can now tell any elected official that my company, labor union or interest group will spend unlimited sums explicitly advertising against your re-election."
McClatchy calls out right-wing justices as "activists": "It's a markedly activist decision, going well beyond what the justices were asked to do ... The court's final decision Thursday did what Citizens United had given up on, which is to explicitly strike down part of the campaign finance law."
LAT reports industry groups now looking to destroy Obama's agenda instead of work towards compromise: "...lobbying and business-oriented interest groups ... are rethinking their willingness to cooperate with President Obama on such contentious issues as healthcare and the environment. And the court decision, which ends a long-standing ban on direct corporate campaign spending, is expected to swell the already substantial flow of money from business groups into Republican coffers."
McClatchy also makes no bones about the political impact: "Most Republicans and conservatives were pleased, since they're more likely to get corporate cash."
National Journal's Eliza Carney raises prospect of still more Court attacks against pillars of democracy: "[The ruling] clearly doesn't neuter the law,' said election lawyer and former FEC Chairman Trevor Potter, general counsel of the Campaign Legal Center. 'It upholds the disclosure provisions for all of the spending, it upholds the soft money ban.' ... But it's an open question how meaningful or effective disclosure requirements will be in a regime that allows corporations and unions to spend freely in campaigns. And with other campaign finance challenges in the pipeline, and the high court so clearly disposed to deregulation, it may only be a matter of time before other election restrictions topple."
NYT edit board explains law to conservative activist judges": "The founders of this nation warned about the dangers of corporate influence. The Constitution they wrote mentions many things and assigns them rights and protections — the people, militias, the press, religions. But it does not mention corporations. In 1907, as corporations reached new heights of wealth and power, Congress made its views of the relationship between corporations and campaigning clear: It banned them from contributing to candidates. At midcentury, it enacted the broader ban on spending that was repeatedly reaffirmed over the decades until it was struck down on Thursday."
Truthdig's John Dean called it a victory for special interests from a conservative court majority with no clue how the world really works: "...what I find most striking about conservative judicial activism typified by this ruling is the fact the justices involved are totally out of touch with reality. None of the men involved in this historic decision have been elected to anything, ever. They have no idea how difficult it is for elected officials to deal in the contemporary money-flooded milieu of Washington. ... Not since Justice Hugo Black, a former U.S. Senator, retired in 1971 has the Court had a member of Congress on its bench, someone who can explain the real world to the other justices. These conservative justices live in a bubble..."
Dorris "Granny D" Haddock says that reform efforts are like to to be washed away in a tsunami of corporate cash: "Conditions are so bad that people now assume that nothing useful can pass Congress due to the vote-buying power of powerful financial interests. The health care reform debacle is but the most recent example. The Supreme Court, representing a radical fringe that does not share the despair of the grand majority of Americans, has made things considerably worse by undoing the modest reforms I walked for and went to jail for, and that tens of thousands of other Americans fought very hard to see enacted. So now, thanks to this Court, corporations can fund their candidates without limits and they can run mudslinging campaigns against everyone else, right up to and including election day."
What can be done now? Marc Ambinder explores options: "Three scenarios being discussed by the WH and Hill Democrats: Go back into the law and ban expenditures from corporations based on fact that they retain lobbyists or have contracts with governments. The Court would probably reject this ... Another avenue would be to impose a requirement that shareholders have to approve of expenditures from a corporation's general treasury ... A third idea: make the 'Stand by Your Ad' requirement apply to all campaign ads. The head of an insurance company would be forced to say, 'I'm Honus Wagner, the CEO of Acme, and I stand by this ad.'"
Capital Eye reports constitutional amendment has been proposed: "Rep. Leonard Boswell (D-Iowa) has also already introduced a constitutional amendment to bar corporations and labor unions from funds from their treasuries to pay for advertisements in connection with federal campaigns."
Jill Filipovic at Feministe pens a "Dear John" letter to Democracy: "Don’t get me wrong, I know you’re still here, technically, chugging along. I’m not suggesting that you’re going to disappear forever, or that you’re dead to me. You haven’t died, Democracy, but you’ve changed. It used to be about us, you know? We could talk about ideas and debate heatedly, and sometimes things didn’t turn out my way, but I always at least felt like I had a say in our relationship. Now, you don’t listen. Why would you? You’ve found someone else – and they’re a lot more wealthy and influential than I am..."
Populists Cheer, Wall Street Cries
Bloomberg on new Glass-Steagall-style proposal: "President Barack Obama, tapping into voter anger over bank bailouts, called for limits on the size and trading activities of financial institutions in order to reduce risk-taking and prevent another financial crisis ... [He] would prohibit banks from running proprietary trading operations solely for their own profit and sponsoring hedge funds and private equity funds. He also proposes expanding a 10 percent market-share cap on deposits to include other liabilities such as non-deposit funding to restrict growth and consolidation."
Time suggests Obama drawing fine line in the sand: "Obama made it clear that when it came to health care he would sign just about any bill; with finance, he's putting down markers that he's perfectly willing to accept no bill (and a potentially explosive political issue) as opposed to a watered-down compromise bill."
Move would restrict Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan. Bloomberg: "JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Goldman Sachs Group Inc. may have to sell some private-equity businesses and stop investing in buyouts under a proposal by President Barack Obama to limit bets made by banks with their own capital. " Morgan Stanley chair whines about "bank bashing."
Banks already taking hit at prospect of slimming down. LAT: "Obama's latest effort could take a big bite out of the bottom lines of such major Wall Street firms as JPMorgan Chase & Co., Bank of America Corp., Citigroup Inc. and Goldman Sachs Group Inc., whose shares each lost at least 4% of their value Thursday."
Wall Street critics welcomed Obama's proposal," reports McClathcy: "'The basic idea ... is a really, really good step,' said Dean Baker, a co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, a liberal research center."
TARP watchdog and critic Elizabeth Warren praises President on MSNBC's Rachel Maddow: "...what will remain after the last [TARP] dollar is paid and the last formal guarantee has been canceled is the reminder that ... with these very large financial institutions, we will throw as many taxpayers under the bus as it takes to save them. That`s known as ... too-big-to-fail. And so, what President Obama was talking about today is he said, we just can`t do that anymore ... we`re going to have to break apart financial institutions that would otherwise be too-big-to-fail and we`re going to have to say for those that take deposits, the ones we`re really going to have to guarantee, they can`t engage in high-risk trading ... without that, quite frankly, our economy just can`t function. Those big banks really will own all of us."
Some note more needs to be done. New Deal 2.0's Jeff Madrick: "...this is not all there is to do. High on the priority list should be a new set of capital requirements for the shadow banks."
New Deal 2.0's L. Randall Wray wants broader restriction on trading: "It is not enough to subject banks to the requirements of the Volcker Rule. Any institution that has access to the Fed and to the FDIC should be prohibited from making ANY KINDS OF TRADES. They should make loans, and purchase securities, and then hold them. (An exception can be made for government debt.)"
Baseline Scenario's James Kwak worries it's too late to win this year:: "Any such legislation has little chance of passing in this session. The (now 41) Republicans had already signaled their intention to kill the Consumer Financial Protection Agency in the Senate, and I was already wondering how the CFPA could survive; banning proprietary trading will be that much harder to pass. (I could be wrong, since theoretically Republicans should want to eliminate implicit government subsidies and increase competition; it depends on how they balance that with their determination to prevent Obama from accomplishing anything.) And if I’m right about this session, I’m even more right about next session, since the Democrats are likely to lose seats in November for all sorts of structural reasons (first midterm election, more seats up for grabs, high unemployment, etc.). That said, this is a battle for the next decade. And having Obama on our side increases our chances of winning. But is he actually on our side?"
Health Care Debate In Disarray
Politico reports rampant finger-pointing, no decision-making: "House Democrats won’t pass the Senate bill. Senate Democrats don’t want to start from scratch just to appease the House. And the White House still isn’t telling Congress how to fix the problem."
NYT reports Congress considering bill to cover half as many additional people: "The consensus measure would be less ambitious than the bills approved last year. It would extend insurance coverage to perhaps 12 million to 15 million people ... insurers could not deny coverage to children under the age of 19 on account of pre-existing medical conditions ... Insurers would have to offer policyholders an opportunity to continue coverage for children through age 25 or 26 ... The federal government would offer financial incentives to states to expand Medicaid to cover childless adults and parents ... would offer grants to states to establish regulated markets known as insurance exchanges ... would offer tax credits to small businesses..."
Speaker Pelosi lists why House won't pass Senate bill: "Pelosi described her members as vehemently opposed to a provision that benefits only Nebraska's Medicaid system ... Also problematic are the federal subsidies the Senate would offer to uninsured individuals, which some House liberals view as insufficient, and the excise tax it would impose on high-value policies, which could hit union households."
Rep. Bill Pascrell pushing piecemeal process. The Hill: "The New Jersey Democrat said he has 25 Democrats with him on his plan, which he said consists of building popular insurance reform measures into a Patient’s Bill of Rights framework; working on creating competition; breaking the private insurance anti-trust exemption; and addressing liability reforms in stages from there. Beyond saying that the excise tax was 'dead,' Pascrell did not say how his plan would be funded. Disappearing under Pascrell’s idea – which he said has drawn interest from Republican leaders he did not name – are a public option, individual health insurance mandates and an expansion of Medicare and Medicaid designed to expand coverage beyond the limits of any new public insurance exchange."
Krugman urges House to pass Senate bill: "Right now, Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House, says that she doesn’t have the votes to pass the Senate bill. But there is no good alternative. Some are urging Democrats to scale back their proposals in the hope of gaining Republican support. But anyone who thinks that would work must have spent the past year living on another planet." Ezra Klein adds: "The Senate bill is the most progressive base bill Democrats will get."
Wonk Room's Igor Volsky asks if Sen.-elect Scott Brown will give money fed subsidies to Massachusetts: "...if Brown believes that Americans should not have to finance other states’ reform efforts, he should return the federal dollars that subsidize Massachusetts’ Medicaid expansion. After all, the state’s 2006 health care reform legislation included an expansion of Medicaid for children up to 300% of the federal poverty level and increased enrollment caps on existing Medicaid programs for adults. Massachusetts relied 'very heavily on federal Medicaid funds to finance the plan, including $385 million in annual federal Medicaid payments that would have been lost in the absence of a plan to reduce the number of uninsured.'"
A Bitter Base: At TPMCafe, M.J. Rosenberg writes of the increasing anger of Democrats towards Democrats: "For the first time since 1967-1968, we are more pissed off at our party than at the Republicans. Who expects anything from the Republicans which, in the spirit of its leader, Rush Limbaugh, hopes for the worst for the country? ...Underneath the anger Democrats feel is deep disappointment. But it does not come close to the anger that so many feel over the way this first year has turned out. That means that the President's first task has to be getting the base back on board. A demoralized base — up against an energized jubilant Republican party — is the ticket to a Republican Congress in 2010."
Got Government?: An appalling lack of accomplishments a year after taking Washington has Ezra Klein wondering "Can Democrats Govern?": "If Democrats abandon health-care reform in the aftermath of Brown's victory, the lesson will be that they can't govern. ... At that point, what's the pitch for voting for Democrats? That they agree with you? A plumber and I both agree that my toilet should work. But if he can't make it work, I'm not going to pay him any money or invite him into my home."
Adam Serwer at The American Prospect writes that Dems won big in 2008 and then began waving the white flag: "The fact is it is the job of elected officials to pass legislation, not to get re-elected. The Democrats are waving a white flag three feet from the finish line in the hopes that they might keep their seats. It's one thing for Republicans to oppose it — many genuinely believe it will do more harm than good. But Democrats know how many people this bill will help, and they are now refusing to pass it out of a misguided sense of self-preservation. This is an unconscionable act of selfish political cowardice..."
Debt Commission Impasse
W. Post reports right-leaning Dems resisting compromise offer for an executive branch debt commission, threaten default of government obligations: "...the group pressed White House officials to endorse a competing proposal to create a budget commission by law, with explicit provisions to put its recommendations to a vote in the House and Senate before the end of this year ... Added Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.): 'We are unwavering in our support for a statutory commission.' ... On Thursday, Senate leaders delayed a vote on a plan to create a statutory commission until next week, to give the White House additional time to work out the problem."
Bernanke Confirmation Hits Resistance
ABC reports Bernanke doesn't yet have the votes in hand: "...the Senate Democratic leadership isn't sure there are enough votes to re-confirm Ben Bernanke for another term as chairman of the Federal Reserve. Bernanke's term expires on Jan. 31. The White House did not respond to many requests for comment. "
Sen. Reid wants more "answers" from Bernanke. The Hill: "...Reid has yet to schedule a vote or invoke cloture on a nomination that has drawn strong criticism from some Republicans and Democrats ... he has broad concerns and wants to hear more from Bernanke on how to strengthen the economy, improve efforts to reduce home foreclosures and spur bank lending to small businesses." Politico adds: "Reid’s statement surprised many since it so obviously left open the question of his support. And the risk for the White House is that Reid’s wording could be seen as a green-light for others to defect."
But CQ says Reid will push to seat Bernanke: "Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., is hoping to lock up agreements for floor consideration next week ... before a lapse occurs between his first and second terms. Reid will likely need to file a cloture motion due to the four holds currently on the nomination. That would require 60 votes in favor..."
Obama Economy Town Hall in Ohio Today
Obama to Ohio today. AP: "President Barack Obama is telling voters in Ohio, already wracked by high unemployment, that investments in clean-energy technologies will help boost the nation's economy. Obama planned to use his visit Friday to test-drive an aggressive populist push on jobs ... A town hall session was on Obama's public schedule at Lorain County Community College, near Cleveland."
W. Post looks at economically depressed NE Ohio and the effects of stimulus: "Obama's day-long visit to the nation's withering manufacturing heartland is intended to show distressed and skeptical Americans that he is doing all he can to create jobs ... The $787 billion economic stimulus plan enacted by Obama last February has brought at least $33 million to Lorain County. Among other things, the money has paid for youth summer jobs, Head Start slots, housing vouchers, road repairs, home weatherization projects and the transformation of a historic railroad station into a new transportation center. Separately, German chemical giant BASF has won a $24 million Department of Energy grant to begin production here of a key component in the next-generation lithium-ion batteries that power hybrid and electric cars. Local leaders have long promoted the idea of creating a wind farm on Lake Erie ... But that idea is burdened by concerns about its economic viability and the ability of the electrical grid to integrate huge amounts of wind power, making it appear years from fruition. In any case, many banks, still reeling from the financial crisis, are reluctant to fund such ventures ... Obama received plaudits in this area for championing the controversial multibillion-dollar bailouts of General Motors and Chrysler. The bailouts no doubt saved jobs across the country, but businesspeople here say those efforts are being undercut by other forces."
US mayors call for second round of stimulus reports NYT.
Some Dems now calling for extension of Bush tax cuts to wealthy, reports The Hill. Wonk Room lambastes: "In an era when everyone seems to be running around screaming about the deficit, there’s absoultely no reason to extend these cuts, which this year will give millionaires more in tax breaks than 90 percent of Americans will earn in income."
Murkowski, ConservaDems Push Overturning of EPA Climate Finding
NYT on introduction of Murkowski amendment to handcuff EPA on carbon pollution: "Ms. Murkowski, joined by 35 Republicans and three conservative Democrats [Sens. Landrieu, Lincoln and Ben Nelson] proposed to use the Congressional Review Act to strip the agency of the power to limit emissions of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act ... Her resolution requires a majority vote in the Senate, a remote possibility because of the strong opposition of the Democratic leader, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, and most other Democrats. It faces even longer odds in the House. And then it would require the signature of President Obama, who is all but certain to veto it because it would rob him of a critical regulatory tool ... An aide to Mr. Reid said that the measure was unlikely to come to a vote before March because of a crowded legislative calendar."
W. Post notes EPA can now move on climate if Congress won't: "As prospects fade that Congress will pass a comprehensive climate bill this year, the EPA has been moving forward to enact regulations that would put costly limits on power plant pollution, making the agency the target of influential industry representatives and some members of Congress ... by the end of March it plans to finalize rules regulating greenhouse gases that cars and trucks emit and rules for identifying any facility emitting at least 25,000 tons of carbon dioxide as a target for regulation ... Influential business interests, ranging from the Southern Co., a utility, to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, are making it clear that Congress will have to step in to stop the administration from reaching that far."
Grist's David Roberts debunks Murkowski's floor speech: "It was one of the most spectacular displays of mendacity and misdirection I’ve ever seen from a U.S. senator, and that’s really saying something. There were lots of little misleading tidbits, but the big lie at the core is this: Murkowski said 'this has nothing to do with the science of climate change.' That is just flatly false. The point of her resolution is to overturn a judgment by EPA scientists that greenhouse gases are a threat to public health. That is a scientific judgment; it is precisely about the science of climate change. It is exactly the same as if a Senator tried to overturn a ruling by the EPA that arsenic, or mercury, or lead paint is a threat. It’s a radical attempt by the legislative branch to interfere with executive branch scientists."
Frank Luntz releases poll analysis showing support for climate legislation, if phrased right. The Vine: "Luntz's findings themselves are notable—mainly because they show that, despite all the gloom among Democrats, there appears to be broad bipartisan support for climate legislation. At least as long as it's not couched in terms of climate change ... People want to hear about 'energy dependence on the Middle East' and 'creating jobs that can't be shipped overseas' rather than "melting glaciers or polar bears' ... 'Cleaner, safer, healthier' is a more effective phrase than 'sustainability' ... Stop saying 'green jobs.' Say 'American jobs.'...'Carbon neutral' conjures up 'Hollywood types flying across the country and buying carbon offsets.' 'Accountability for polluters,' on the other hand, conjures up good governance."
"80 US CEOs Call on Obama and Congress to Enact Clean Energy Reform," reports TreeHugger
The first decade of the 21st century was the warmest ever, according to the radical socialist vegans at NASA.
